I do believe my case concerning the issue on the death of John Lennon is quite strong as Joost is looking into the matter.

Sorry, but that's yet another wrong assumption. We're having a discussion here so I think it's only fair that I at least try to see your point. That however, unfortionately, doesn't automatically mean that I think you have a strong case.

Some other things does not make sense either, like why would he go to Africa on some stupid safari trip? He never was interested in that before.

Thousands of people go to Africa for "stupid safari trips". Why does that make no sense? We're on an incredibly interesting planet here and you never know how much time you've got to check it out. It would make no sense to me if you have the chance to see something of the world and you DON'T do it.

Plus Pauls public appearances between 66 and 73 were not limited at all.

Very true! Actually he probably went more in public then the other three. He was the bachelor of the group at that time and did a lot of clubbing. He also was very active in the London art & underground scene and is probably the most photographed Beatle in 1966-1968.

Very true! Actually he probably went more in public then the other three. He was the bachelor of the group at that time and did a lot of clubbing. He also was very active in the London art & underground scene and is probably the most photographed Beatle in 1966-1968.

I was a bit sad and did a count for the 52 weeks from Sept 66. He appeared in public as much as John, and far more than the other two. These appearances included photo shoots, radio and TV interviews and a trip to the US to be with Jane. Hardly the actions of a man being kept under wraps.

This pic is not about Paul here, but its about my argument that if and when people change over time they can still be identified with precision as many features of the person will match including those freaky ears!!!! and the skull itself still has not changed at all. Take a real closeeeeeeeeeeeeeee looooooook.

Check this out. These are mug shots taken 55 years apart when the police finally caught up to this dude running a wedding chapel after skipping parole back in the 50's. This dude originally was given the death sentence which later was resentenced to life and did 15 years and then was released and on parole 1972. He was never heard from since. Well he ditched it and ahem, wow, they caught up to the sucker 2 days ago. On the first mug to the left it shows you the year being 1955, and he just was caught 2 days ago and now is 78!!!!!!! This is a 55 year spread!!!!!!!!

Now make your comparisons because this is one of the gists of my arguments that the Paul you see today is not the same Paul of yesterday. Viva Paul McCartney - Shes got a ticket to ride she don't care. My favorite.

This is so unreal gang, the guy on the left is the very same sap on the right, and fingerprints match and yet you all still deny. And this is a span of 55 years. I can just picture this. If someone went thru the trouble to look and age very similar to the Real Paul, and did everything else via the training even vocal, you would believe it to be the Real Paul.

The ear style has not change at all, and neither did the skull and many of his features still are the same 55 years later. Obviously many of you cannot tell or want to admit that this is the one and the same sap. That is why I posted this pic here to see your reactions.

When he got that first mug shot he was around 22-24 years old. The aging effect I believe is what throws most folks off and that is probably the biggest point. The skull is never going to change via aging effect as that is permanent for virtual several hundred thousand years and longer. The ears can go up and down, but the style of the ears remains the same like it or not. The nose can be changed a lot and that is well proven by MJ.

This person never had surgery on the face and was genuinely and positively identified, and I wanted to show everyone this pic to prove my point and that is the gist of my argument that the Paul you see today is not the Paul of yesterday. It just does not match even 40 plus years later. I wish it did, but its not so. I wish I can get or find some expert on aging that has the computer capability to show all of you but at the moment I don't know who has it, and will find out once back in USA>

It is not ridiculous to say the least and it truly is a valid point. Why isn't it?

youre contradicting. ears change or they do not change. you have not responded to an earlier post on pauls ears. how can you tell that the skull of the two men pictured is the same? mjs nose changed because of surgery. i guess this man was identified by his fingerprints not by the shape of his skull or shape of his ears. how this case of aging can be related to pauls or whoevers is not clear to me. pretty individual if you ask me.

youre contradicting. ears change or they do not change. you have not responded to an earlier post on pauls ears. how can you tell that the skull of the two men pictured is the same? mjs nose changed because of surgery. i guess this man was identified by his fingerprints not by the shape of his skull or shape of his ears. how this case of aging can be related to pauls or whoevers is not clear to me. pretty individual if you ask me.

Hi Swine;

Ok I think there is a way for you to understand and the idea just popped into my head. What I will do is post 4 pics of ears OK. You tell me which one matches. I will first post the easy one. Then I will post the hard one. I think once you see it, then you will understand what I am talking about. Fair enough

The guy was first identified by comparing him and the mug shot. So when the police thought the person they were looking at and the mug shot, sure it looked awful close. So they asked the sap his name and ah, well its a different name, looked at the drivers license he said who he was, yet the police again looked at the mug shot, and looked at him and decided to take him in for questioning. Once there, when the fingerprints were sent out, the guy confessed to who he was and the identification confirmed one and the same sap.

Swine, the police who looked at him were 90% sure it was the same person, but still had doubts that they could be wrong as everything looked in order no problem etc, and everything looked legit. The sap knew this and was praying they go away. Not so, and after they made him submit to the fingerprints, his cover was blown.

The same thing can happen when the police do the DNA check on a suspect, and this also can blow the cover on the suspect too.

The thing regarding the Pauls involved here, is first, we do not have the genuine actual fingerprints of the real Paul up to the end of the summer of 66. I swear my sweet peas Swine, had we got even just one print of the real Paul, you can bet I myself would do everything I can to get any kind of print of the Paul of today and see it matches up. Since we do not have this vital evidence, all we got now is the facial features plus other things to debate on and hopefully some day we can get that DNA and compare it to Michael the Real Pauls brother. If not, everybody loses and this festering issue will be like cancer lasting for many many years.

id say that mike was replaced as well. look at his skull when he was young. theres absolutely no match with faulmikes skull now. dont you agree? the lips are like fingerprints as well. and expert told me so last night. the same goes for eyebrows and the shirt that somebodys wearing. so i have to deduct that were not looking at the real mike mccartney.

As we see others age or as we see ourselves age, we often notice that ears appear to get longer in middle and old age. But do they really?

The scientific validity of this common observation has been challenged from time to time by those who maintain that ears don't really grow longer (or larger) with age - they only look as if they do - that it's all just an illusion.

They point out that since the body shrinks somewhat with age, the ears may appear to have grown longer (and larger) while actually staying the same size. So what does science say? In fact, our ears do grow longer with age. Indeed, they grow throughout our lives.

In 1990, Drs L Pelz and B Stein from Medical Branch of the University of Rostock in Germany measured the ears of 1,271 children and adolescents. They report in Padiatrie und Grenzgebiete that ear length increases "steadily and annually", but ear width remains the same.

Dr James Heathcote, a general practitioner from Kent in the UK, along with four colleagues, studied 206 patients with the mean age of 53. Dr Heathcote concluded in the 23 December 1995 British Medical Journal, that "as we get older our ears get bigger (on average by 0.22mm a year)".

The next year, in the 2 March British Medical Journal, Dr Yashhiro Asai, a physician at the Futanazu Clinic in Misaki, Japan, along with three colleagues, agreed with Heathcote. Their study of 400 consecutive patients aged 20 and older concludes "that ear length correlates significantly with age, as Heathcote showed, in Japanese people".

In 1999, Dr VF Ferrario and four colleagues from the Functional Anatomy Research Centre at the University of Milan in Italy, writing in the Journal of Craniofacial Genetic Developmental Biology, present evidence that not only do ears get longer with age, but it happens to both women and men. Men’s ears start out longer than women's and they stay that way.

Why ears grow longer with age? Gravity over time forces every body appendage to sag. The bane of human aging: If it can sag, it will sag! Ears included.